So it is that I have recently been very skeptical of the term ‘consciousness’ (though grant that it can sometimes be a useful shorthand), and hence my question to you: Have I overlooked any counts in favour of the term ‘consciousness’?
You haven’t mentioned terms like qualia, phenomenology and somatics. Those terms lead to debate where the term consciousness is useful. I think it’s useful to be able to distinguish conscious from unconscious mental processes.
I don’t think you need specific words. Germany brought forward strong philosophers and psychologists without having a term for “mind”.
It’s always interesting how different languages handle problems like that. If I look at Lojban it was a word for conscious “sanji” with also means “recognize in the sense of “discern”″ and “something aware of something”.
Do you also dislike terms like “awareness” or “recognize”?
A lot of tribal language might do without a term for consciousness but use a lot of spirits or ghosts to explain mental phenomena.
Even our Indoeuropean languages used to use words like “soul” but we stripped it out in the last decades.
I think it’s a good exercise to think about starting from scratch with labeling mental phenomena and think how many terms one needs to describe things well. Such a project might lead to a new language that beats Lojban.
You haven’t mentioned terms like qualia, phenomenology and somatics. Those terms lead to debate where the term consciousness is useful.
Example? What’s a specific useful discussion that is best conducted by using the term ‘consciousness’, rather than ‘qualia’, ‘self-awareness’, and other, more specific (even if not necessarily less confused) terms?
Do you also dislike terms like “awareness” or “recognize”?
‘Awareness’ used in a discussion that’s at all philosophical does make me antsy, and brace myself for someone to treat awareness as a magical, mysterious thing. ‘Recognize’ is very rarely abused, so I am generally fine.
Example? What’s a specific useful discussion that is best conducted by using the term ‘consciousness’, rather than ‘qualia’, ‘self-awareness’, and other, more specific (even if not necessarily less confused) terms?
Consciousness is in the way I understand the word the thing that perceives qualia. There are discussions where it’s useful to have a word for that. I recently read Thomas Hanna’s book “somatics reawakening the mind’s control of movement, flexibility, and health” and think the book uses it in a useful manner.
There a certain qualia that I would label as ‘self-awareness’. There also the process of passing the mirror test that you could label with the word ‘self-awareness’.
If I want to be specific when I’m talking about qualia I also distinguish the feeling to exist from self awareness. It however took me months to get the distinction between the two. I also do my main thinking in that area in German and have to translate.
Consciousness is in the way I understand the word the thing that perceives qualia. There are discussions where it’s useful to have a word for that.
Questions of whether qualia is a useful concept aside, I feel that any discussion where you’re talking about ‘consciousness’ in the sense of ‘qualia-experiencing’ would benefit from just saying ‘qualia-experiencing’, since ‘consciousness’ can mean so many different things in that rough area of philosophy that it’s liable to cause misinterpretation, equivocation, etc.
I recently read Thomas Hanna’s book “somatics reawakening the mind’s control of movement, flexibility, and health” and think the book uses it in a useful manner.
Yep, this looks like a fair use of ‘consciousness’ to me.
Once you accept that there is something which experiences qualia that raises the question of whether that something has other attributes that we can also investigate. Investigating that question isn’t easy but I don’t think that just because it’s a hard question one should shun that question.
To get back to Thomas Hanna, he is a quite interesting character. He was chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Florida. Then he went more practical and in the applied teaching of somatics and makes some pretty big claims about how it can make people healthy and eliminate most of the diseases of aging only to die at the age of 61 in a car crash.
I read him because buybuydandavis recommened him on LW. One of the claims is that people often suffer from what he calls sensor-motor amnesia whereby people forget how to use and relax certain muscles in their body and that leads to medical problems. According to him that sensor-motor amnesia is healable. Sensor-motor amnesia would be one aspect of aging that Aubrey de Grey missed in his list.
Hanna attributes 50% of all illness towards problems arising from sensor-motor amnesia which is a pretty big claim. Even if it’s less than 50% identifying a part of aging that we can actually do something about seems very important. Bonus points are that a book like that gives you a better grasp on consciousness and related concepts.
You haven’t mentioned terms like qualia, phenomenology and somatics. Those terms lead to debate where the term consciousness is useful. I think it’s useful to be able to distinguish conscious from unconscious mental processes.
I don’t think you need specific words. Germany brought forward strong philosophers and psychologists without having a term for “mind”. It’s always interesting how different languages handle problems like that. If I look at Lojban it was a word for conscious “sanji” with also means “recognize in the sense of “discern”″ and “something aware of something”. Do you also dislike terms like “awareness” or “recognize”?
A lot of tribal language might do without a term for consciousness but use a lot of spirits or ghosts to explain mental phenomena. Even our Indoeuropean languages used to use words like “soul” but we stripped it out in the last decades.
I think it’s a good exercise to think about starting from scratch with labeling mental phenomena and think how many terms one needs to describe things well. Such a project might lead to a new language that beats Lojban.
Upvoted.
Example? What’s a specific useful discussion that is best conducted by using the term ‘consciousness’, rather than ‘qualia’, ‘self-awareness’, and other, more specific (even if not necessarily less confused) terms?
‘Awareness’ used in a discussion that’s at all philosophical does make me antsy, and brace myself for someone to treat awareness as a magical, mysterious thing. ‘Recognize’ is very rarely abused, so I am generally fine.
Consciousness is in the way I understand the word the thing that perceives qualia. There are discussions where it’s useful to have a word for that. I recently read Thomas Hanna’s book “somatics reawakening the mind’s control of movement, flexibility, and health” and think the book uses it in a useful manner.
There a certain qualia that I would label as ‘self-awareness’. There also the process of passing the mirror test that you could label with the word ‘self-awareness’. If I want to be specific when I’m talking about qualia I also distinguish the feeling to exist from self awareness. It however took me months to get the distinction between the two. I also do my main thinking in that area in German and have to translate.
Questions of whether qualia is a useful concept aside, I feel that any discussion where you’re talking about ‘consciousness’ in the sense of ‘qualia-experiencing’ would benefit from just saying ‘qualia-experiencing’, since ‘consciousness’ can mean so many different things in that rough area of philosophy that it’s liable to cause misinterpretation, equivocation, etc.
Yep, this looks like a fair use of ‘consciousness’ to me.
Once you accept that there is something which experiences qualia that raises the question of whether that something has other attributes that we can also investigate. Investigating that question isn’t easy but I don’t think that just because it’s a hard question one should shun that question.
To get back to Thomas Hanna, he is a quite interesting character. He was chairman of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Florida. Then he went more practical and in the applied teaching of somatics and makes some pretty big claims about how it can make people healthy and eliminate most of the diseases of aging only to die at the age of 61 in a car crash.
I read him because buybuydandavis recommened him on LW. One of the claims is that people often suffer from what he calls sensor-motor amnesia whereby people forget how to use and relax certain muscles in their body and that leads to medical problems. According to him that sensor-motor amnesia is healable. Sensor-motor amnesia would be one aspect of aging that Aubrey de Grey missed in his list.
Hanna attributes 50% of all illness towards problems arising from sensor-motor amnesia which is a pretty big claim. Even if it’s less than 50% identifying a part of aging that we can actually do something about seems very important. Bonus points are that a book like that gives you a better grasp on consciousness and related concepts.